Is religion required for morality and for people to behave morally?

[Jichard]

No, religion is not required for morality, nor is it required for people to behave morally.

"Does religion make people moral?"
http://www.the-brights.net/morality/...%20365-384.pdf

moral sentiments that encourage prosociality evolved independently of religion, and secular institutions can serve social monitoring functions; therefore religion is not necessary for morality [emphasis added]. Supernatural monitoring and related cultural practices build social solidarity and extend moral concern to strangers as a result of a cultural evolutionary process."

"Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions"
http://www.onlyemes.org/wproot/wp-co...on_atheism.pdf

[Leonhard]

Who is making the claim that in order for humans to exhibit natural virtue they must be aligned to a particular religion? The claim by the Christian religion, as that's the only one I'm going to defend, has never been "Come into our fold so that you might become good", its "Convert your way and walk this path and you will be saved." That's a somewhat different claim.

There's also a distinction to be made between the kind of goodness described in that article, a moral vision reduced to a kind of pro-social behavior, and the morality that's talked about within Catholicism, which has a comprehensive view of human beings on all aspect, including sexuality (where many secular people won't assent). The kind of morality in that article is slippery, and if I offer that it doesn't quite cover what is actually meant by goodness, you could always say that this is just my opinion.

So... no you certainly don't need religion to be pro-social. That's already a human trait, and you'll find it everywhere. But some evils I think would also naturally flourish in secular countries: abortion, fornication, homosexuality, etc...

[AlecWelsh]

The issue is that religion thinks they can only define morality. Like Leonhard above, claiming evil like Homosexuality. Superstition has no place in anything let alone morality. Religion distorts people who naturally can be moral.

[Jichard]

Who is making the claim that in order for humans to exhibit natural virtue they must be aligned to a particular religion?

Prejudiced people. That is: there are many theists who have anti-atheist prejudice. These prejudiced people think that atheists are so morally backward, that atheists are about as trustworthy as rapists. I'm not joking; they think atheists are as trustworthy as rapists. One can help combat this prejudice by reminding these theists that atheists are not necessarily wildly immoral and thus this anti-atheist prejudice is unjustified.

"Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice"
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...n-atheists.pdf

But some evils I think would also naturally flourish in secular countries: abortion, fornication, homosexuality, etc...

Abortion, fornication, and homosexuality also occur in majority Christian countries, such as the US. After all, many religious people are hypocrites (Ted Haggard and such) and being religious is compatible with doing things that go against one's religion, while rationalizing one's actions.

[Papa Zoom]

No but God is required unless of course you believe that morality is flexible and changeable.

[AlecWelsh]

No but God is required unless of course you believe that morality is flexible and changeable.

IF God is require you believe morality is flexible and changeable since morality does not stand on its own.

[Jichard]

No but God is required unless of course you believe that morality is flexible and changeable.

What do you mean?

If by "morality" you mean people's moral beliefs, moral statements, moral practices, etc., then those change regardless of whether God exists or not. It analogous to how science (in the sense of people's scientific beliefs, scientific statements, scientific practices, etc.) changes.

If by "morality" you mean what is actually morally good, morally wrong, etc. then that can stay the same without God.

[Papa Zoom]

IF God is require you believe morality is flexible and changeable since morality does not stand on its own.

Well that seems to be the question. Does morality depend on you and me and our collective views or is it something else?

[Papa Zoom]

What do you mean?

If by "morality" you mean people's moral beliefs, moral statements, moral practices, etc., then those change regardless of whether God exists or not. It analogous to how science (in the sense of people's scientific beliefs, scientific statements, scientific practices, etc.) changes.

If by "morality" you mean what is actually morally good, morally wrong, etc. then that can stay the same without God.

I mean by what is actually good apart from any thought you or I may give it. If something is good or bad in and of itself (it is wrong to kill babies for fun but it is good to feed the hungry) then those moral truths would require God. Otherwise it's just an opinion. If there is no God, there's no reason to suggest that killing babies for fun is actually wrong - only that as a society we view it as an unacceptable thing.

[AlecWelsh]

Well that seems to be the question. Does morality depend on you and me and our collective views or is it something else?

It would be based on the suffering of sentient individuals. Given that all beings can suffer, it would be based on the promotion of the opportunity for well-being and the reduction of unjust suffering of sentient individuals.

[Papa Zoom]

It would be based on the suffering of sentient individuals. Given that all beings can suffer, it would be based on the promotion of the opportunity for well-being and the reduction of unjust suffering of sentient individuals.

Where does this idea of unjust suffering come from? Just because beings can suffer why does that matter? Someone had to decide that suffering of sentient individuals is bad. But what if someone says it's neither good or bad? What if everyone but you think suffering is ok? Then what? Is it still unjust?

[AlecWelsh]

Where does this idea of unjust suffering come from? Just because beings can suffer why does that matter? Someone had to decide that suffering of sentient individuals is bad. But what if someone says it's neither good or bad? What if everyone but you think suffering is ok? Then what? Is it still unjust?

We the concept being conveyed by suffering is by definition bad. Anyone who argues suffering is ok I would ask if they understand the words they are using. There is a standard of justice as well regardless of people opinions. Anyone who can argue why they would be ok with experiencing unjust suffering without being irrational or a masochist I would say then they could argue why one could cause unjust suffering. But I do not think that can be done by definition.

[Papa Zoom]

We the concept being conveyed by suffering is by definition bad.

Anyone who argues suffering is ok I would ask if they understand the words they are using. There is a standard of justice as well regardless of people opinions.

Yes there is a standard of justice. But is this standard just a human convention and could it change or is it something that transcends human thought? Does this standard exist apart from our knowledge of it?

Anyone who can argue why they would be ok with experiencing unjust suffering without being irrational or a masochist I would say then they could argue why one could cause unjust suffering. But I do not think that can be done by definition.

There's a difference between saying suffering is something I don't like and saying suffering is unjust. I don't like suffering (as in seeing others suffer). But does that also mean it's unjust (because I say so?). I'm not so sure that suffering is a good example here because suffering is something all of us face as a fact of life. And how we define suffering might differ from person to person.

So let's try this:
It's pretty clear that torturing babies for fun would inflict unjust suffering. I would say that torturing babies for fun is wrong but I don't simply mean I don't like it. I mean that even if the entire world thought torturing babies for fun is NOT wrong, it would still be wrong. Lest you think this is a silly example, in a lecture one woman was asked by Ravi Zacharias if killing babies for fun was wrong and she replied, "I can say I wouldn't like it but I can't say it's wrong." As an atheist, she recognized she had no basis to say something was truly wrong.

It can't be wrong simply because we say so. It can't be wrong simply because society says so (because if society later says it's not wrong then what?) So if it's really wrong (objectively, not dependent on the thoughts of anyone) it has to have a source. Atheism cannot account for this problem (although they try very hard to do otherwise.)

[AlecWelsh]

Yes there is a standard of justice. But is this standard just a human convention and could it change or is it something that transcends human thought? Does this standard exist apart from our knowledge of it?

Well I think the concept that is generally being conveyed is to transected human thought. Justice to human interaction is like logic to rational discussion. It is the standard that allows us to play on the same field. No human gets to rise above justice.

There's a difference between saying suffering is something I don't like and saying suffering is unjust. I don't like suffering (as in seeing others suffer). But does that also mean it's unjust (because I say so?). I'm not so sure that suffering is a good example here because suffering is something all of us face as a fact of life. And how we define suffering might differ from person to person.

This is where I disagree. Studies have shown that animals have the same neurophysiology's to experiences emotions like humans. People might like different foods but we general experience hunger the same way and someone kidnapping and starving you or me would suck regardless who experienced it.

So let's try this:
It's pretty clear that torturing babies for fun would inflict unjust suffering. I would say that torturing babies for fun is wrong but I don't simply mean I don't like it. I mean that even if the entire world thought torturing babies for fun is NOT wrong, it would still be wrong. Lest you think this is a silly example, in a lecture one woman was asked by Ravi Zacharias if killing babies for fun was wrong and she replied, "I can say I wouldn't like it but I can't say it's wrong." As an atheist, she recognized she had no basis to say something was truly wrong.

It can't be wrong simply because we say so. It can't be wrong simply because society says so (because if society later says it's not wrong then what?) So if it's really wrong (objectively, not dependent on the thoughts of anyone) it has to have a source. Atheism cannot account for this problem (although they try very hard to do otherwise.)

Yes, not just because it would not be good for the species but there is no justification to killing babies. The values is in ourselves. We all as individuals agree that our lives matter to us and that we are all equal in the perspective of life and death. Who can argue that their life actually matters more than someone else?

[Papa Zoom]

Well I think the concept that is generally being conveyed is to transected human thought. Justice to human interaction is like logic to rational discussion. It is the standard that allows us to play on the same field. No human gets to rise above justice.

I agree but by what standard do you get this idea of justice? That's what I'm driving at. If its source isn't God, then what?

This is where I disagree. Studies have shown that animals have the same neurophysiology's to experiences emotions like humans. People might like different foods but we general experience hunger the same way and someone kidnapping and starving you or me would suck regardless who experienced it.

I'm not sure what you thought I meant because I agree with the above statement by you.

Yes, not just because it would not be good for the species but there is no justification to killing babies.

So another way to say that is that it is unjust to kill babies. What is the source of this rule?

The values is in ourselves. We all as individuals agree that our lives matter to us and that we are all equal in the perspective of life and death. Who can argue that their life actually matters more than someone else?

Apparently people do make this argument all the time. Babies will down syndrome are routinely aborted as are other children with "defects." So apparently those lives don't matter as much as "healthy" children.
[There is only very minor differences between a baby with Down Syndrome and one without. It is because they are so identical that many Down Syndrome Screening Tests and Markers for Down Syndrome have been developed.
However, a Down Syndrome abortion is very different in some respects. Down Syndrome abortions normally involve a wanted baby that has been shown to have Down Syndrome.

......researchers found that where abortion was readily available, the incidence of Down Syndrome dropped by approximately 40%, in comparison to areas where abortion was not more freely available. In other words, it appears from this that at least 40% of parents choose to terminate the pregnancy when a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is made. ] http://www.cdadc.com/ds/down-syndrome-abortion.html

The Nazis killed the Jews because they thought them inferior. Margaret Sanger definitely had views that some lives were more valuable to society than other lives. The history of the world shows this is true in every culture (or most). We may repudiate it but what makes us right and others wrong on this matter?